agencies themselves and they are also on food stamps and i wonder what the folks that you talk to, what were their thoughts about government and certainly is the last question, it feels like the people who are only happy with the government services are the great slumlords who benefit handsomely from this. >> it is a great question, it really is. you're absolutely right that poor people often have deeply unpleasant interactions with government agencies. and at least in part that is because there are government agencies we can set up to be unpleasant. they can provide a disincentive
to get engaged and not all institutions and one of them has worked out what is there trying to get access to housing. if you give people mediocre services and you deliver them with a smile, a lot of people are legitimately very satisfied with the government. >> this includes asking the question a bit, but if you go to other countries that do not create unpleasant bureaucracies, the letter of dissatisfaction that the government is not there. and you should go to a scandinavian country that have a social safety net system and the way that the poor deal with and are dealt with by government is
different. there is more than an interaction of respect and when i was resourcing and this includes the university lecturer on cd. and i listened and there was this whole section on a noncitizen and it is treated this way by the state and most victoriously you could not crucify roman citizens and you could not crucify us this in the u.s. there was a way of showing a key system. as i was interviewing america's porter. and this includes the humiliation and the word
humiliates obviously has this. we have a group of people that think it is okay to use the power of government to humiliate and interact with government and you see it in its cases and dealt with as a criminal. they are trying to get food stamps and get fingerprinted and that's an awful way to deal with poverty and that is part of the way to wrap this up because it should not create this kind of case, but that is what we have done and there are tremendous levels of distrust. >> thank you so much, thank you. [applause] [applause] and to this audience. this is some kind of a terrific audience and i really appreciate it very much.
so we are going to have books for sale and the author will sit there and -- are you right handed? [laughter] >> okay, he's left-handed. so have fun. this is terrific. this is great and i love it. thank you for coming, sasha bramsky. [inaudible conversations] >> warm sun and rain, it has brought the crop to maturity. the heads are beginning to bend as a sign of rightness. he crushes the heads between his hands until the chaff and grain are separated. >> agriculture was in some ways a devil's bargain. it began by domesticating wheat, and that is the way we always
talk about it. but the fact is that we domesticated it in some ways and we gave up the freedom to wander and hunt and gather as we have done for 50,000 years. that maybe you better or worse than agriculture in some ways, and we can argue that but the fact fact is that evolution made us to be that way and we surrender the conditions and people still argue a lot about how agriculture happen and the classic story is that we ran out of game, essentially. so was the only way we can feed ourselves. one day one guy woke up and thought that he would invent agriculture and that's not the way happen probably. but that is one story. another story is that we did disturbances by living together with people compacting the soil, and a lot